Bill C-54 (Historical)

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder)

This enactment amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that the paramount consideration in the decision-making process is the safety of the public and to create a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. It also enhances the involvement of victims in the regime and makes procedural and technical amendments.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the matter we are discussing today in connection with Bill C-54 is very sensitive, in light of all the issues raised in the House.

We are clearly talking about crimes committed. We are also talking about the criminal responsibility of people ultimately deemed to be not criminally responsible.

We have already said that we will vote in favour of this bill at second reading, because we believe that it deserves to be reviewed in committee. However, I heard a few questions from government members, and I am concerned about how this issue is being dealt with.

Of course, it is a sensitive issue and it has to be handled with great tact. However, I really feel that the government is behaving as if it wants to make the issue much more political than it ought to be, especially if we truly want to examine it with cool heads. The government has addressed the issue twice at news conferences, announcing the bill to the media and the public.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about the need for careful, reasoned and rational consideration of this issue.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Pontiac. Public safety is a rather major issue.

One of the objectives of Bill C-54 is to protect victims. The bill seeks to increase the safety of victims by providing them with more opportunities to participate in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime, by ensuring that they are notified on request when the accused is discharged, allowing non-communication orders between the accused and the victim and ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are being made about an accused person.

In addition, the proposed legislation would help ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the law across the country. However, it is important to note that these reforms would not change the current eligibility criteria in the Criminal Code with respect to exemption from criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder.

The proposed reforms would also define the concept of significant threat to the safety of the public, which is a current test for determining whether a review board can maintain its jurisdiction and continue to supervise a mentally disordered accused.

The bill would clarify the fact that restrictions could be imposed on an accused who presents a public safety risk of a criminal nature, though not necessarily of a violent nature.

Protecting the public and victims of crime and violence is obviously a good thing. Everyone probably already knows this, but crime has its most direct impact on victims in every respect: physically, emotionally, spiritually and financially.

From a financial perspective alone, many researchers have attempted to estimate the intangible costs borne by victims of crime, but none of the studies are official. Still, most agree that the intangible costs are often the most onerous ones for victims.

Of the total estimated costs, $14.3 billion was incurred as a direct result of crime for such items as medical attention, hospitalization, lost wages, missed school days and stolen or damaged property.

While crime has its most significant impact on victims, others around them suffer as well. In its 2008 report entitled “Costs of Crime in Canada”, the Department of Justice estimated that intangible costs were about $68.2 billion, which increased the total cost of crime to $99.6 billion. That is astounding.

However, even though this bill is important and may help victims, we have to keep things in perspective. We have to act according to facts, not fear. For example, in Ontario, Canada's most populous province, only 0.001% of individuals accused of a Criminal Code offence were deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The recidivism rate for these individuals is between 2.5% and 7.5%, while the recidivism rate for other federal offenders is between 41% and 44%.

Contrary to what the government would have Canadians believe, there is not necessarily a correlation between the seriousness of a crime and the likelihood that the offender will reoffend or his ability to improve his mental health and live a normal, happy life.

Some recent high-profile cases suggest that the current approach may not be effective. Like my NDP colleagues, I would like to know how we can help the victims in the process. To figure out the best approaches, we need to talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces.

It is also important to avoid politicizing this issue. We have to study the merits of the policy, and that study must be properly financed by the federal government.

In such a study it seems to me that it would be important to ask some of the following questions, as did my hon. Liberal colleague from Mount Royal.

What studies, case law and theoretical sources did the government rely in drafting this bill? What statistics did the government collect on persons deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders? For each of the past 10 years by province, territory and type of offence, how many people were deemed not criminally responsible? Which persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were found guilty of a subsequent offence? What was the nature of the subsequent offence? What persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were deemed not criminally responsible for a subsequent offence? What was the nature of that subsequent offence?

With good answers and data on these questions, we as legislatures would be far more informed to ensure that the legislation passed was well crafted and would do the job we needed it to do.

We in the official opposition, despite supporting the bill at second reading, still have a few unanswered questions, which we hope the government will attempt to answer in the months ahead.

We agree that public safety must come first, but we must also ensure proper compliance with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are open to change, but we must also ensure that the way in which we handle cases involving mentally disordered accused persons is effective in terms of the treatment of mental disorders. To that end, we must ensure that the provinces have adequate financial resources since they are the ones ultimately managing the situation.

With regard to the charter, we must always be careful that in our zeal to protect our fellow citizens we do not harm hard-won civil rights. It would be helpful to know whether Bill C-54 was reviewed by the Department of Justice to ensure its compliance with the charter and what measures the government took to prevent charter challenges concerning persons deemed not criminally responsible. If there was indeed a review, what were the review's findings?

I also wonder, on the role of victims, if consideration has been given to the fact that some people are unable to confront criminals who have victimized them. I mentioned the enormous cost burden to victims earlier because I also wonder why there are no provisions being made in the bill for more resources for the victims who have to live with the consequences of these criminal acts.

Also, what about financial support to the provinces? Is this new policy not being developed on the backs of the provinces? A spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated that the provinces would not receive any additional funding to address these new measures, yet we know there will be costs involved.

Despite these reservations, I agree that in order to protect our fellow citizens, there is a need for a mechanism by which certain individuals who are found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder may be declared high risk. I also agree that there should be an increase in the involvement of victims in this process. These are the reasons why I support the bill at second reading.

Truly, the voice of the voiceless should never be silenced, which is why I am happy again to support the bill at second reading.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

The key new measure provided for in this bill is a new power to designate a high-risk category of accused under both the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

The category of accused that has drawn considerable attention and loud calls for stricter punishment is exactly this category, particularly for more heinous acts where somebody is deemed to be not criminally responsible. In such cases, the accused is neither convicted nor acquitted. These cases are to be differentiated from an accused found unfit to stand trial. Once deemed fit, those accused may be tried for the offence and incarcerated. In both cases, the accused is normally incarcerated in the forensic unit of a mental hospital.

Current law obligates a court or review board to discharge an accused found not criminally responsible unless he or she poses a significant risk to public safety. In rendering the decision, they must give consideration to a number of factors: the need to protect the public from dangerous persons; the mental condition of the accused; reintegration of the accused into society; and other needs of the accused.

The proposed new law makes the safety of the public the paramount consideration. In other words, it means sidebarring the mental condition of the accused or any efforts made to eventually reintegrate the accused into society, which will happen eventually.

What has attracted the most public controversy are cases where the accused has committed violent acts, is deemed not criminally responsible, is detained in an institution and is then released. Some are complaining that these are unjust punishments and that they merit harsher responses and retribution. Concerns have been raised about the potential of continued endangerment of the community.

The fact that an accused may be found not criminally responsible absolutely does not diminish recognition of the heinous character of any violent act. It does not in any way diminish the impact of that act on the victims, their families or their communities.

Yet in law, an accused must be accorded his or her full rights under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To not do so means that the matter may be referred to the courts. This is particularly the case for NCR accused who are neither convicted nor acquitted of an offence. It is critical to the rule of law.

The challenge in addressing crimes arising from short-term or long-term mental disorders is determining the appropriate judicial and treatment response that addresses the mental state of the accused, the harm caused, the potential for reoffending, the deterrent effect, and the challenge of responding to crimes arising from short- or long-term mental disorders.

Bill C-54 proposes three key reforms for these accused.

The first is to put public safety first by making explicit that this is the paramount consideration for the court and the review boards. Again, that sets aside equal consideration of the mental state of the accused and the rehabilitation to enable them to return safely to community.

The second is to create a high-risk designation. It would empower the courts and the review boards to impose a high-risk designation for any accused found NCR of a serious personal injury offence and where there is a substantial likelihood of further violence that could endanger the public or where the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate significant threat of harm to the public. It is that second factor that a number of organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association, would like to have removed from the bill.

The third is to have “significant threat to the safety of the public” be defined in the code.

Such accused are to be denied any conditional or absolute discharges. The designations are only to be revoked by a court order, on the recommendation of a review board. Again, the Canadian Bar Association is objecting to that, saying that the more appropriate body to be deciding the mental state of the accused, vis-à-vis safety to the community, is a review board in consultation with psychiatrists, not a court.

Also there would be stricter controls on community visits. Again, a number of associations, including the Psychiatric Association of Canada, have said that this is exactly the kind of measure, if appropriately accompanied, that could help to gradually rehabilitate people and bring them back into the community.

It would also give the power to the review board to extend the review period from one to three years. In other words, there is the potential to not allow the release of the person, even if he or she is then found to be mentally competent to go back to his or her community.

Access to treatment under the law is not to be affected.

The provision in the law that most support is being found for is the provision for enhanced involvement of the victim in the proceedings. There would be notice, upon request, when the accused is discharged. It would provide for orders of non-communication between the accused and the victim, and any decisions related to the accused would give due consideration to the safety of any victims.

The current law already requires courts and review boards to consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of any accused, reintegration into society and other needs of the accused. These reforms may, in some small way, appease some members of the public. However, would they have any appreciable effect on reducing the number of violent crimes perpetrated by persons with long-term or temporary mental conditions? Statistics suggest otherwise.

Recidivism rates for NCR accused range from 2.5% to 7.5%. That is to be compared with a 41% to 45% rate of recidivism for other offenders. Therefore, the NCR accused are the most highly unlikely to reoffend. How then can we rationalize detaining them for more extended periods? Can any extension ever satisfy those distressed by the crime? Eventually they will be released, so is increased incarceration in a forensic unit, with potentially limited psychiatric care, the answer? As has been pointed out by other members, are the courts the appropriate authority to be making a decision on the rehabilitation of the mentally disordered person? Should that not remain with the review boards and psychiatric care?

Is a better, or at least additional, solution to ensure more resources for Canadian mental health detention facilities, as the experts have called for? It is important to examine the case law and to hear from legal and medical experts, and as others have suggested, to examine whether each provincial or territorial jurisdiction has the appropriate facilities to detain these accused for extended time periods and to provide the necessary psychiatric support.

It will be helpful for the government to release its opinion on the potential charter challenges the bill may pose so that those matters may be addressed before any reforms are enacted. It will be important to hear testimony on the cost implications of the bill compared to other alternatives, as incarceration is normally the highest-cost alternative. An obvious question is whether the provinces and territories have been consulted, as these costs will most certainly be downloaded to them for extended periods of detention, the provision of psychiatric services and the duty to notify and track victims and the accused.

What have other medical and legal experts said so far about the proposed law? All have expressed concern that they have not been consulted in the development and drafting of this law. The Canadian Psychiatric Association recommends against the high-risk designation, as no evidence exists that these policies pose undue public risk. They also point out that the recidivism rate is very low for the NCR accused. They state that it would impose a substantial drain on already scarce forensic resources while delivering little increased public safety. They say that it merely reinforces punishment and retribution while removing valuable therapeutic tools. They also say that the unintended consequences of the high-risk designation contradicts campaigns, including by this House, to open dialogue on mental health, removing the stigma and enabling early treatment. They recommend the removal of brutality of the offence as a criterion, as does the Canadian Bar Association. They say that they should permit escorted passes and should remove the power to extend the review period.

The Schizophrenia Society endorses exactly what the Psychiatric Association has said. The John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society raise serious concerns about these proposals, except for the notice provisions.

The Canadian Bar Association National Criminal Justice Section opposes the high-risk designation as unconstitutional, so we can anticipate court challenges. If enacted, they recommend that the “brutal nature” of the act category of consideration be removed and that there be added a right of the accused to apply to the court to remove the high-risk designation. They also support the notice requirements.

As legislators, it is of utmost importance that in making any new laws, particularly criminal laws, we take the time to consult and consider the opinions and advice of informed and experienced experts. It is for that reason I will be supporting this bill at second reading. It is so wise counsel can finally be publicly revealed and considered.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We are looking for justice. We propose laws that should, in theory, be in the spirit of justice. Unfortunately, we sometimes miss the mark. However, in the tradition of the English criminal law system, we have judges and juries. Sometimes, these people say that the law does not reflect their vision of justice, in the sense that it seeks to revenge or too harshly punish a crime, when what they were looking for was justice.

This does not mean that we will support and protect criminals. We must find a balance. Does Bill C-54 provide that balance? We will support this bill, even though we are very uncomfortable with the philosophy behind it. However, we will search for justice. That is the duty of every single member who sits in this House.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today.

Bill C-54 aims to include a new policy in the legislation, and that policy, that ideological shift, forces us to take a step back and look at our country's history.

As soon as British rule was established, we enforced British laws. Criminal laws were set out in the aptly named Bloody Code. The number of crimes that resulted in a death sentence was unreasonable. Quite often, it was not just death by hanging. In Canada, it often involved torture.

The second important element of the British criminal code that we inherited is the jury. That is an important element, one that should not be ignored.

Individuals appearing before the jury were guilty. They had already been proven guilty. When the jury found out what kind of sentence was to be meted out, the jury members decided to declare the individuals innocent. The jury did not want to be complicit in enforcing an overly harsh and unreasonably cruel law. Luckily, the Bloody Code was amended and became the Criminal Code.

At the time, stealing cattle could lead to death by hanging. Household servants who stole something from the house could receive the death penalty. Those crimes were abolished because they were so unreasonable and the penalties were no longer being enforced. The jury refused to be complicit in imposing such harsh sentences.

This brings us back to the present situation. Juries can still refuse to enforce the Criminal Code in a more modern way. If jury members really believe in all good conscience that enforcing the Criminal Code is unacceptable, they can reject it.

The last time this was clearly applied in recent times was in the Morgentaler case. Dr. Morgentaler performed abortions, which was strictly prohibited by the Criminal Code. He was prosecuted in a trial by jury. The evidence that he was indeed performing abortions was clear, but the jury refused to enforce the Criminal Code. The jury said it would not be complicit with the politicians who had passed the legislation, which they considered to be flawed and poorly drafted, legislation that punished a crime that was only in the politicians' heads. The jury said no. That is the danger with Bill C-54 and its whole underlying philosophy—that we are going to be tough on crime, scare people and impose extremely harsh minimum sentences to punish crime.

Judges will say to themselves that the cases are theirs, that they will keep a certain distance and that they are not puppets who are incapable of any independent thought. We saw this with the Firearms Act. Someone had gone to a friend's house, taken the friend's revolver and was playing with that illegal weapon. He committed a crime. However, the judge ruled that there had to be criminal intent and that the law, as it was written, was unacceptable. He struck down the law.

A judge can strike down a law, and so can a jury.

When it comes to crimes committed by people with mental health issues, it is important to understand that, when faced with the absolute horror of the crime, members of a jury always tend to say that an individual of sound mind would never have done such a thing. A good example of this is the case of Dr. Turcotte, who murdered his two children.

All the lawyers and prosecutors who are under the obligation to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt have encountered this problem in these types of cases: the jury cannot accept that a man of sound mind would do such a horrific thing to his children.

Dr. Turcotte took full advantage of this human reaction. That was the basis for his defence. It was a jury that decided his fate. It is easy to say that the judge should have done more, but there is always the risk that the jury will be unable to accept that a person of sound mind could commit such atrocities.

This risk hangs over every trial involving serial killers. That is why prosecutors must be well prepared. They must prove that the crime was premeditated. Often, if the prosecutor can prove that the crime was premeditated, the jury sees that it was not a moment of temporary insanity. The person planned, organized and committed the crime. In the case of Dr. Turcotte, the jury did not find that such was the case.

With the notion of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, only a glimmer of doubt is needed for the person to be proven innocent. This poses another problem: the use of media coverage of the amendment to the Criminal Code for political purposes. We must not kid ourselves. There is a party in the House with a “tough on crime” agenda. That is fine. However, it is a bit ridiculous for the government to say that it is going to be tough on criminals and then turn around and make cuts to police budgets. This is not the first time that this government has contradicted itself.

People who commit crimes must be punished. Our Criminal Code does just that. However, some changes had to be made. Parole after one-sixth of a sentence and the two-for-one credit for time served before sentencing did not make sense.

It is fine to pass a law, but the reality is that we have to enforce it. Whenever we express the slightest doubt, we are accused of supporting pedophiles or cyberpedophiles and being anti-law.

Legislation and the law are two different things. So are legislation and justice. In the House, we are committed to justice. We are being asked to pass bills whose only objective is to let the minister say that the government will prevent such and such an incident from happening. I am sorry, but in the case of Dr. Turcotte, it would not have changed anything. Furthermore, leaving a rope in Dr. Turcotte's cell will not solve the problem.

By the way, I would like to point out that counselling a person to commit suicide is a Criminal Code offence. The Conservatives might want to inform some senators of that. It would be useful sometimes if people would read the law, not just defend it. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially for those in Parliament who claim to champion Criminal Code amendments.

This is obviously a sad case. I have very little time left, so to sum up: this law will not change anything because the jury still remains the judge of the facts.

The House resumed from March 1, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was Harold Macmillan who once said, “Events, my dear friend, events”. That is the great variable.

As we know, we have had many events and we were delighted that we were able to get Bill S-7 approved by this House this past week, in response to events.

Today, we will continue with debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.

It being Victims Week, we will follow up on this week's passage of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, with debate tomorrow on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.

Insofar as the government's agenda, there is actually a very significant cornerstone to that agenda; that is, of course, our economic action plan. Earlier this week, the House adopted a ways and means motion to allow for a bill implementing measures from economic action plan 2013. Our top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, so if a bill following on the ways and means motion were to be introduced before Wednesday, we would give that bill priority consideration for debate Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week.

In the interim, on Monday, we will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice and the support of Canada act. It is my hope that this debate will conclude on Monday so that we can have the third reading debate on that bill on Tuesday.

If we have the opportunity next week, we will continue the second reading debate of the not criminally responsible reform act. This is an important bill and I would hope that it will get to committee without delay.

The government will also give consideration to Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act at second reading; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act at report stage and third reading; Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading; and finally, Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader expressed concern that the scheduling of several opposition days, on which the opposition gets to determine the subject matter of debate in the House of Commons, showed a complete absence of a plan and a complete absence of any ideas for policy innovation. Having heard the debate and the resolutions coming from the opposition for debate on those days, I am inclined to agree with him.

Sadly, they have shown that when the opposition has the agenda, there are no new ideas and there is nothing of value spoken. However, the Standing Orders do require us to have those opposition days scheduled as part of our procedure, and that is what we are doing.

I would like, however, to respond a little bit to his comments on the time allocation on the bill yesterday. Yesterday's bill was Bill S-2, a bill to give aboriginal women and their children on reserve the same matrimonial rights that other people have. It is a bill that has been in Parliament for five years, through a series of Parliaments, in fact, and it has not yet come to a vote. To paraphrase the President of the United States in the recent State of the Union address, the aboriginal women and children of Canada deserve the right to a vote. That is why we did what we had to do, after five years of obstruction from the opposition preventing the bill from coming forward.

The bill would provide the protection they have been denied for decades. It is truly shameful that, starting with the Leader of the Opposition, every single opposition member stood up against this bill at second reading. They voted against the principle of protecting aboriginal women and children and providing them with rights equal to those of all Canadian women off reserve. They voted against giving them protection from violence in the situation of a domestic family breakdown and giving them the same rights to matrimonial homes that other women have had for decades in this country.

It is another example of how the NDP approaches things. It claims that it is for women's rights and aboriginal rights, but when it comes time to actually take action, it does not. It is “do as I say, not as I do”.

This afternoon we will continue the New Democrats' opposition day. Tomorrow is the fourth allotted day, when the New Democrats will again propose our topic for debate. Monday shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see a Liberal motion debated. Tuesday shall be the sixth allotted day, with a further New Democratic motion being considered.

Next week is victims week in Canada, so on Wednesday, the House will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which aims to put the protection of society and of victims front and centre.

On Thursday morning we will consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, at report stage. After question period on Thursday, we will start report stage for Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, which was reported back from the transport committee this morning.

Finally, next Friday, Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, will be again considered at report stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of today's meeting. I will just give you a reminder that the meeting on Wednesday is for the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Please look at the calendar from here to the end, sometime in June. It's about nine weeks with a one-week break. Have some ideas of what you want to study.

We will be getting Bill C-54 eventually. I'm not sure exactly when that's happening, but I'll certainly do my best to find out beforehand. Come prepared to talk about what we'd like to do. I'd like to have it organized for the next couple of months. That would be great.

Is there anything else?

Could I have a motion to adjourn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. That is the bill for today.

I just want to comment before we break. On Wednesday we're dealing with another private member's bill. We have witnesses. On Bill S-209, we have the mover from the Senate, and he can only be here for half an hour. The mover or supporter from the House is coming for the first half hour. So try to be focused on that. Then we have a witness—and we only have one witness—for a maximum of an hour. Then there's only one clause. It's a long one, but there's only one, so I left a half an hour to deal with that.

Then we're on a two-week break from here, back to our ridings, which I know we will enjoy. Happy Easter to everybody who celebrates Easter.

This is what we will do when we get back. In the first week back we will deal with Bill C-444, which is the impersonating a police officer private member's bill. We'll have the mover, then we'll do witnesses, and then we'll try to do clause-by-clause, if we can, that week.

In the second week I'm hoping we will do the Criminal Code official languages three-year review of section 533.1, which deals with being able to have your court case in both official languages. It's a requirement of this committee to look at how it's gone for the last three years. It's a three-year review. We will be inviting, obviously, the minister's officials to come and talk to us about how it's going. If you have any witnesses for that, it would be great.

If you have any witnesses for next week's bill on impersonating police officers, please give it to the clerk as soon as possible, because it's going to be hard to chase you down when we're back in the ridings. It's much easier when you're here.

Then, for the last two weeks of the four-week section that we're in, I'm hoping we will see whether Bill C-54 gets referred to the committee from the House, and we'll deal with that legislation for at least those two weeks is my guess. We have a large witness list already started for Bill C-54, so we'll see what the committee decides in terms of length for that.

At this point, those are the next two weeks when we come back, and you know what's happening on Wednesday.

With that, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very happy to be here with you today, Minister, because I think sometimes we forget how much has been done in making sure that we have a system that stands behind both victims and law-abiding Canadians. I think it's good for us sometimes to stop and take a look at what's been done, but as you noted in your opening statement, Minister, there still is a lot of work that needs to be carried out.

Specific to that, in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, in the 1990s and 2000s there were some very high-profile cases that alarmed a lot of people in my riding. When the Prime Minister and you were in Burnaby announcing that there had been some legislation tabled regarding the not criminally responsible, certainly I received a lot of input from people in my riding, and very supportive feedback.

That being said, Minister, I think just as Mr. Wilks mentioned about the coming into force of the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act, sometimes it's good for us to review what things have been done and what things are going to be worked on.

On February 8, Minister, you introduced Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. The introduction of this legislation is part of our government's plan for safe streets and communities, which is one of the four priorities the Prime Minister has identified.

How will this legislation ensure that not criminally responsible accused people who are found too dangerous to release are no longer a threat to their victims or to Canadian communities? Minister, I'd like your analysis on that, please, if you wouldn't mind.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

I will first provide a little background. The bill proposes three major amendments. The proposed amendments are intended to make public safety the priority, to create a finding that a person who is not criminally responsible is a high-risk accused, and to enhance the involvement of victims.

At present, it is often forgotten that section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provides that the court or review boards shall take into consideration “the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused”.

As some of my colleagues have already said, we will support the bill at second reading, so that it can be examined in greater depth in committee. That said, measures already exist for making public safety the priority. That is something we consider to be very important, and we support it. We want to hear what the experts have to tell us about that.

The legislative amendments to the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code that are proposed in the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act would clearly make public safety the paramount concern in the courts and in the decision-making processes of review boards in relation to persons declared NCR—not criminally responsible—or unfit to stand trial.

I will explain that a little more. At present, at the trial of a person with a mental disorder, there are three possible verdicts: absolute discharge, if the person is not a significant threat to public safety; conditional discharge, and that is what we will be discussing here; and detention in custody in a hospital, which is not changing. So there are really two things. First, a person may be charged. However, if the person has a relatively severe disorder and is unable to stand trial immediately, they will not stand trial right away. The person will therefore have permission not to stand trial. They will be treated and will stand trial later. Here we are talking about someone who could be a threat to public safety. What is done then is that the person is offered treatment. The bill ensures that while receiving treatment, the person will not be dangerous to public safety.

My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques told us about a problem: the fact that the timing of the Conservative government’s introduction of the bill seems a little suspicious. That is unfortunate, because it is a very good bill. We will allow the bill to proceed, but we are a little afraid that the Conservatives would like to score political points with this bill. They announced it on the day Quebec learned that Dr. Turcotte might be released. That trial received extensive media coverage. The Conservatives immediately came and told us they would be putting forward a bill to protect the public. So they came in on their big horses with their swords at the ready, to say they were protecting the public. That is something we hear a lot from the Conservative side: that they are the best when it comes to protecting the public. That said, this is actually what the bill does, by strengthening the protection of the public. But one does wonder why the Conservatives introduced it at this time. Why did they make the announcement at a point when the bill was still only at the draft stage or did not even exist yet?

My second concern about the bill is that the Conservatives are attempting to download costs to the provinces. In an interview with Global News, Carole Saindon, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said the provinces would have to foot the bill for this new policy. This seems to be increasingly the case with Conservative bills.

The federal government passes laws and downloads the costs of implementing them to the provincial governments. It did so, for example, when it increased the age of eligibility for OAS. It did so again with Bill C-10 on minimum sentences. This bill we have before us, which is a good bill, will also have to be paid for by the provinces. What is more, we do not know if the provinces and territories were consulted. We do not know what will happen if a province does not have the necessary funds to fully implement the bill.

There is an organization in Ontario that deals with mentally ill people who get in trouble with the law. It is currently working at 104% capacity. The bill is a step in the right direction, but we do not know if we will have the means to implement it.

My second point concerns the creation of the high-risk NCR accused designation. This bill would amend the Criminal Code by creating a process to designate accused persons as high-risk NCR. They could be designated NCR because of serious personal injury offences committed against other persons and because there is a substantial likelihood of further violence that would endanger the public. The designation might also apply in cases in which the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public. High-risk NCR accused would be ineligible for a conditional or absolute discharge. The designation could only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board. This designation would apply only to NCR accused, not to persons found unfit to stand trial.

Persons found unfit to stand trial are persons who are unable to undergo a trial but who were not unfit at the time of the crime.

The third amendment I discussed earlier concerns enhancing victims' involvement. I would like to emphasize this point. Victims often appear to be forgotten by the Conservative Party. This is what troubles me. The government always tables law and order legislation, but it often forgets the victims. I used to work in a prison. I was a teacher at a detention centre. Social reintegration is key to ensuring that things go well in society. I understand that there must be laws and punishment—no one is opposed to that—but we are lacking a reintegration aspect.

As a number of my colleagues have said, we had trouble obtaining data from the government on this subject. Some members had to place questions on the order paper to get answers. We wanted to get some of the case law and statistics gathered by the government on persons found not criminally responsible. We wanted to know how much time each person found not criminally responsible spent in treatment before being discharged. We wanted to know exactly how many people this legislation would affect.

I think it is appropriate to talk about enhancing victims' involvement. Victims are often disregarded in Conservative legislation. This bill would ensure that victims are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. The bill provides for non-communications orders between the accused and the victim. It will also ensure that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person. However, I find this last point somewhat vague. This information does not tell me how that would be done or how victims' safety would be guaranteed.

To sum up, I think this is a bill that will enhance an existing act. I hope the Conservative Party is not playing a game so that it can make a lot of political hay out of this issue.

This is not the point of the exercise. The objective is to come up with a better law that respects human rights.

I hope that we will have the bill before us in committee long enough to study it carefully, that witnesses from all sides of the House will appear and that we will go through the whole process in order to pass this bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) at second reading.

I am very pleased to be the first member to speak for the official opposition after our justice critic, who is also the member for Gatineau. She gave an excellent speech. I would like to talk about the aspects that I think are the most important in relation to the position we will be taking as the official opposition. Before going any further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine.

Basically, Bill C-54 presents three major amendments. The first is that the safety of the public will be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to the accused or those found not criminally responsible for an offence. Second, it creates a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. Finally, the bill enhances the involvement of victims. The victim will be informed when the person found not criminally responsible for a crime against the victim is released. There may also be a disposition that communications between the not criminally responsible accused and the victim be prohibited. The bill also provides that the victim’s safety must be considered in decisions made with regard to the release of the person found not criminally responsible for a crime.

When we talk about making public safety a priority, we should point out something that is often ignored: the issue of public safety is already taken into account in decisions made either by a judge or by review boards. This includes cases involving mental disorders. This can be found in Criminal Code section 672.54, which provides that the courts or the review boards must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons. The mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused are also discussed. Therefore, the Criminal Code already has provisions that oblige the court and the review boards to consider the issue of public safety in the decisions they are making.

With regard to findings that certain accused persons are not criminally responsible but that they are high risk, a different category is proposed. Anyone who has been accused and found not criminally responsible may currently receive one of three verdicts from the court.

The first is an absolute discharge. Here again, the Criminal Code clearly states that an absolute discharge is given if the person is not considered to be a threat to public safety. This newly created category does not affect the matter of absolute discharge. There is also the possibility of a conditional discharge that includes a number of conditions. If a person found not criminally responsible is considered high risk, he cannot be given a conditional discharge. The third possibility, which already existed for not criminally responsible people who might be a risk or a threat, is detention in custody in a hospital.

So, ultimately, this new category of not criminally responsible but high-risk accused affects only one of three possible verdicts. Even before, a high-risk person could not get an absolute discharge and could be kept in custody in a hospital. Now, that person will no longer have the possibility of getting a conditional discharge.

The third question is an issue to which we are sensitive, and that is to increase victim participation in the process. Of course, in many cases, the mental disorder review board—I am familiar with the one in Quebec—must really think about the impact on the victim. We are concerned about this issue because there have been a few cases in Quebec, including one in particular to which the hon. member for Gatineau referred, which is that of Dr. Turcotte.

Before discussing this case, I want to mention a concern that we have, not necessarily regarding the bill and its content but, rather, the Conservative government's approach to these issues and, more specifically, this legislation.

There is really a desire to play political games for populist motives. I am concerned about the government's approach to this bill. We have known for a number of months that the government wanted to propose a bill to deal with accused persons found not criminally responsible. We knew that because the government had already announced its intention, last fall if I am not mistaken.

When it was announced that the Quebec mental disorder review board would conditionally discharge Dr. Turcotte, who was being detained at Institut-Philippe-Pinel, it generated debates, particularly in Quebec. Immediately, on the same day, the government held a press conference to announce once again that it would soon introduce this bill, which was still not ready or drafted.

Therefore, I am very concerned about this government's desire to make political hay with very important issues that should be dealt with in a responsible and reasoned fashion, with a cool head and without using very sensitive situations that stir emotions.

I say this as a person, as a parent, as a father of a four-year-old boy and a one-year-old girl who finds the crime committed by Dr. Turcotte extremely disturbing and traumatic. In that regard, I am thinking about my own children.

However, we are here to represent society and our constituencies. Despite the horror of the actions that are sometimes taken and highly publicized, we must deal with these issues in a reasoned way and with a cool head.

We have another problem, which is the issue of political gains. If this bill is passed—and it probably will, given the Conservative majority—the government could go everywhere in Canada, and particularly in Quebec with, among others, a well-known senator who often speaks for the government on these issues. That senator would meet with victims of acts committed by people found not criminally responsible and tell them that he listened to them and solved their problem. That is not really the perspective we should have on this issue. I am asking the government to be very careful in the way it deals with this issue, whether here in the House or in committee.

We do want to work and help victims be more involved in the process. They must see that the system meets their expectations and needs. However, we want to achieve that result in a balanced fashion that also meets the imperatives of our system, which is a system of law and order, a system based on the rule of law.

The hon. member for Gatineau, who is the justice critic for the official opposition, also mentioned the government's usual approach, which is of great concern to us and which we witnessed, particularly with Bill C-10. That was the omnibus crime bill that imposed a number of measures without consultation with the provinces and territories. Moreover, the government did not provide any impact studies on the ramifications of this bill, including the need for statistics.

For example, in this specific case, what are the recidivism rates? What are the numbers for crime and recidivism by accused found not criminally responsible? We do not have answers. The question was put to the Minister of Justice, but we did not get an answer. These are important issues that will have to be dealt with, and we want answers from the government on this sensitive matter.

In conclusion, I also asked the Minister of Justice if the provinces had been consulted to see if they were prepared to bear the costs. Again, I did not get an answer. There was no prior consultation on the issue of minimum sentences in Bill C-10. This bill will generate additional costs, not only for the system, but also for the institutions that must treat these people.

Let us not forget that, in Ontario, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is currently operating at 104% of its capacity. If Ontario is not able to provide adequate resources, this bill will unfortunately fail to address a significant part of the problem.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which would change how the Canadian justice system deals with accused found not criminally responsible, or NCR, on account of mental disorder.

It may seem like déjà vu for some that I am speaking again on this issue. As minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, I stood in this place to introduce the legislation that reformed this system, legislation, I might add, that passed with the support of all parties in 2005 and that has stood the test for the last eight years and more.

Throughout that debate, and the discussion thus far on Bill C-54, I have come to appreciate that members of the House have a clear compassion and concern for all innocent victims of violence and their loved ones, that we all seek to protect public safety, and that we agree on the need to support victims and victims families. Guaranteeing their well-being, as I said on the occasion of the introduction of my legislation regarding reforms to the mental disorder regime in 2005, is of primary importance in our justice system. It is precisely for that reason, as minister of justice, that I enacted measures allowing victims to provide impact statements at review board hearings for NCR accused. We should not think that the matters are being established or initiated for the first time now.

I was proud of the legislation that we introduced on NCR accused because it adopted an evidence-based approach and incorporated the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada, the expertise of justice and health professionals and reports of standing committees of the House on this matter. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of the bill before us. In the matter of Bill C-54, the government's approach and rhetoric appear to be grounded more in fear and stigma than in the facts and evidence.

I will begin my remarks, therefore, with an overview of the available data about NCR accused. I will then share my specific concerns regarding this legislation while suggesting alternative measures that would likely prove more effective at preventing violence by people with mental disorders and hence better protect public safety, let alone having less victims. Finally, I will discuss how the bill fits a pattern of Conservative justice legislation that focuses excessively on the addition of punitive measures to the Criminal Code, on a punitive rather than preventive perspective.

Let me begin by reminding us all of the scope of the bill. NCR accused are neither found guilty nor innocent.

As the Supreme Court explains, this regime “supplements the traditional guilt-innocence dichotomy of the criminal law with a new alternative for NCR accused--an alternative of...assessment to determine whether the person poses a continuing threat to society coupled with an emphasis on providing opportunities to receive appropriate treatment.”

NCR accused account for less than 1% of accused persons annually. In evaluating the NCR regime and determining whether reform is needed, it is important to keep these facts in mind, yet on the day the bill was tabled, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and currently the Associate Minister of National Defence appeared on CBC and said with respect to the recidivism rate of NCR accused, “I'm not aware that there are any particular statistics available on that. I'm not sure that this is what it's all about.”

This is a particularly puzzling statement, given that the Supreme Court, in the case from which I just cited, Winko v. British Columbia, found that “Research shows that NCR accused are no more likely than their convicted counterparts to commit any offence, let alone a violent offence, upon release”. While that particular case is from 1999, more recent statistics are available, but they are not favourable to the government's case.

That statement by the parliamentary secretary was in essence an admission that the government has eschewed empirical evidence in the drafting of the bill, which aims expressly to make it more difficult to release NCR accused in the name of public safety, yet if legislation is to protect the public against a particular threat, information regarding the extent of that threat is fundamental. Otherwise we are legislating based on myth, gut instinct and stereotyping, which the NCR regime sought specifically to guard against with respect to the mentally ill.

The data to which we do not have access—and I have submitted an order paper question in this regard that I hope will receive a full response in the near future—indicate that very few mentally ill people commit violent acts, even fewer are found not criminally responsible and only a minuscule percentage of those found to be NCR reoffend after treatment.

To begin with, according to researchers from McGill University and Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 90% of people with mental illness are non-violent. Moreover, a report prepared for the Department of Justice shows that in 2004, the last year studied, only 0.18% of all criminal cases resulted in a finding that the accused was either NCR or unfit to stand trial for reasons of mental incapacity. Finally, a Canadian study from 2003 puts the recidivism rate for people who have been found NCR, treated and released at just 7.5%. By contrast, those who are not NCR and have served in federal prisons have a reconviction rate of over 40%.

I realize I am using many numbers here, but I do not want there to be any confusion. This bill is dealing with less than 10% of a population that is already less than 1% of all those criminally accused in Canada. One would think that for all the hype over this legislation that it would be targeting a large group of Canadians, not less than one-tenth of a percent.

There is no doubt that the rarity of the occurrence is of little importance to those who are victimized and the horror that they have experienced, and certain efforts to refine our NCR regime may well be worthwhile. In fact, Bill C-54 does contain some measures that are reasonable and worthy of support, such as keeping victims families better informed and prohibiting perpetrators from contacting victims after their release. However the government's overstatement of the problem and the heavy-handed response to it risks doing more harm than good.

This brings me to the second part of my remarks, in which I will discuss specific concerns about Bill C-54 and particular aspects of the bill that may have unintended negative consequences. To begin with, Bill C-54 would allow certain NCR accused to be designated high-risk, not by mental health experts, but by criminal courts. This designation would devolve subsequent decision-making authority regarding the accused from specialized review boards to criminal courts, once again despite the fact that general criminal courts lack the requisite expertise to make determinations about the risks posed by a person with mental illness.

The government is proposing this change without offering any evidence that review boards have failed to protect the public from a dangerous NCR accused. Indeed, under the current system, review boards do not release NCR accused who continue to pose a threat, something that appears to be ignored by the government in its deliberations thus far.

The high-risk designation, combined with tripling the time period between reviews from one year to three, may cause NCR inmates to remain in custody long after successful treatment. Such an outcome would be unacceptable, given that, as the Supreme Court has stressed, NCR accused have not been convicted of a crime. Indeed, as the court has stated, “the NCR accused is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation. The NCR accused is not to be punished, nor is the NCR accused to languish in custody...”.

Accordingly, Bill C-54 could lead to charter claims with respect to the section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person; the section 9 guarantee that everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; and we could see section 15 challenges, as there is prohibition against discrimination on the basis of mental disability. Yet again, the government is seeking to enact legislation that will invite protracted, expensive and avoidable constitutional litigation. May I add parenthetically that, ever the optimist, I await the minister's report of charter inconsistency pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.

Beyond the litigation risk, detaining more NCR accused for longer periods of time gives rise to the very practical problem of where these individuals will reside while in treatment. For this reason, I have asked the government for details about the capacity of the mental health institutions in which NCR accused are placed, and about any plans to increase that capacity, as well as any analysis that has been performed on Bill C-54's potential consequences in this regard.

It is by no means clear that our system is at present capable of dealing with greater numbers of NCR accused who are institutionalized for longer periods of time, and we risk complicating their recovery by straining the resources of the institutions and the individuals who are treated. That potential strain and resulting decrease in the effectiveness of such institutions, combined with the possibility that NCR accused could be detained for years even after successful treatment, might mean that mentally ill accused will be less likely to plead NCR as a result of this bill.

We would therefore find ourselves with even more mentally ill people in our prison system.

I am sure that I do not have to remind members of the tragic consequences of housing people with mental disorders in prison rather than in medical facilities. There are consequences for the inmates, as was demonstrated by the heart-wrenching videos of Ashley Smith, and there are consequences for public safety, which the government says is the primary concern that underpins the bill.

When mentally ill people are returned untreated into society after servicing a prison sentence, they pose a far greater danger than NCR accused who have been treated by medical professionals and evaluated by experts. For this reason, I introduced an amendment to last year's omnibus crime bill that would have allowed offenders to receive mental health treatment prior to incarceration, as is already done in cases of drug addiction. Regrettably, the Conservatives rejected this amendment.

Yet the best way of minimizing the potential that someone with a mental illness will commit a violent act, and therefore the best way of protecting the public, which appears to be the objective, as stated by the government, of this legislation, is to ensure effective treatment for the mentally ill.

This brings me to the next section of my remarks, in which I will discuss ways of minimizing the risk of violence by the mentally ill without resorting to punitive, counterproductive and constitutionally suspect measures, which underpin this legislation.

Parliament must encourage and facilitate timely and effective treatment, not only for NCR accused but especially for people in the early stages of mental illness whose conditions can be treated effectively. Indeed, according to the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the key is early identification, intervention and treatment. To that end, we could train people who work with youth to recognize the initial symptoms of psychosis, since many psychoses develop in adolescence. We could help expand the reach of first episode psychosis clinics, institutions specifically designed to help young patients and their families deal with mental illness in its early stages.

Sadly, however, too many people wait years before receiving treatment, sometimes because their symptoms go unrecognized, and often because they fear the stigma associated with mental disease. It is therefore vital for parliamentarians to set the example by combating that stigma through our words and deeds.

Earlier this month, the members for Toronto Centre and Oak Ridges—Markham encouraged Canadians to openly discuss mental illness, emphasizing that there is no shame in having a mental disease and that recovery is possible. This is the attitude that must underpin our approach to all matters of mental health, including evaluation and refinement of the NCR regime.

However, through its rhetoric and approach to Bill C-54, the government has cast NCR accused as irredeemably violent and has contributed to the impression that Canadians have much to fear from the mentally ill. By overstating the problem of violence by people with mental illness and by understating or ignoring the potential effectiveness of treatment, the government adds to the stigmatization that so many Canadians are working so hard to undo.

As the bill goes forward, I call upon members to engage in the legitimate debate about the particulars of our NCR regime without ceding to stigma and stereotype.

I will use the remainder of my time to take a step back and view the legislation before us as it fits into the overall Conservative justice agenda.

With Bill C-54, the government would continue a pattern of focusing almost exclusively on criminal punishment, behaving as though incarceration is the only tool at the justice minister's disposal and criminal law the only legal domain over which Parliament exercises authority.

Given the rhetoric about the necessity of such reforms, one could be forgiven for mistakenly assuming that Canada is overrun with dangerous criminals and violent psychopaths terrorizing our country unimpeded. The truth of the matter is that the government's rather myopic focus on criminal law and its overemphasis on punishment, as opposed to prevention and rehabilitation, not only undermines its own efforts to promote public safety but prejudices the many other aspects of the justice agenda that are being overlooked.

For example, legal aid is woefully underfunded in this country, and the government has yet to commit to a comprehensive and sustainable civil as well as criminal legal aid program. Moreover, when it comes to judicial appointments, diversity on the bench is seemingly not a priority. Indeed, the only statistics the federal government keeps with respect to such appointments is in regard to gender, ignoring the diversity imperative that the judiciary reflect the populace, with representatives from different ethnic and religious groups.

Canada has also missed the opportunity to use the 30th anniversary of the charter to share our significant and storied legal expertise with judiciaries in developing countries. The government marked this anniversary only by releasing factually questionable press releases that seemed to highlight the Bill of Rights, which, ironically, Bill C-54 may also infringe. Instead, the government should have celebrated what legal scholars around the world have lauded as a landmark document and should have committed to public legal education, domestic law reform and international law-building.

The government could also recommit to wrongful conviction review, increase funding for the war crimes and crimes against humanity program or introduce legislation, oft promised, to allow random roadside breath testing.

I realize it may seem as though I have strayed somewhat from the subject before us, but perhaps it bears pointing out to the government the reality that more Canadians will die at the hands of drunk drivers annually than will die at the hands of NCR accused. Where is the legislation for those victims? Where is the focus on what is a criminal justice issue, where the government has real preventive powers? Bill C-54 demonstrates clearly the government's failure to prioritize and to consider the evidence before it.

This is but one example. In the aftermath of the Idle No More movement, which may have temporarily quieted down but has by no means disappeared—nor should it—now would be the ideal time for the government to commit to an aboriginal justice strategy, ensuring that indigenous legal traditions have their proper place before our courts.

There are also changes needed in the areas of statutory interpretation, alternative dispute resolution, consolidation of statutes, restorative justice and treaty reform, among many others, yet the government persists with a justice agenda limited almost entirely to criminal law, using as justification the odd high-profile case as opposed to empirical data. The bill before us today fits this unfortunate pattern.

As I mentioned, I have submitted an order paper question asking for evidence that would demonstrate the need for a bill like this one. I am open to any possibility that the government will table statistics and analysis that does just that. However, for the moment, the available research indicates the opposite, suggesting that recidivism rates are low, that review boards are thorough, and indeed, that mental illnesses are treatable and ought to be treated as a means of preventing crime.

I have no trouble understanding the fear and frustration many Canadians feel when certain NCR accused are returned to society, and I appreciate the horror victims have felt in this regard and the trauma that has thereby been experienced. However, we will never protect the public by letting fear outweigh facts as a basis for legislation or by having a punitive approach overtake the need for prevention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) be read the second time and referred to a committee.